LexBob2

Maybe you should organize a class action lawsuit against the bas***ds.

Toys4RJill

Maybe CR will run an article about how misleading CR is

Some of the things they have cleverly left out:

1. Most modern cars have oil life monitors that will tell you that you are low on oil

2. Forced induction engines usually burn more oil

3. Almost all cars will warn you that the pressure is low

4. CR never once mentioned what might be stated in the owners manuals

5. CR never touched upon what type of oil the respondents were using

6. CR never touched on whether the owners are driving the cars hard

spwolf

it is not normal and will screw up other parts of the engine as well... all these manufacturers will currently repair these engines if customer complains about oil consumption.

LexBob2

Sue 'em.... Maybe they'll come around.

Toys4RJill

Apparently these geniuses at CR said that the CR does not show a direct connection to increased repairs of other parts of the engine.

BUT, they also said that ANY that burns oil between oil changes should be rapaired....so that is a lot of engines as apparently we have all discovered that almost all engines burn some sort of amount of oil.

mmarshall

Good Luck.

LeX2K

I read the full article they are doing nothing of the sort. You are attacking CR because you don't like what the data is showing.

LoveCT

Jill, I think it's rather you that is full of whatever. You are blaming CR for pointing out some of the important things that the buying public tend to overlook naturally. You, yourself claim that you did not know beforehand some of the rather very basic facts about engines. That engines will burn oil, some small, while others more considerable. Extreme driven engines have always been recommended to be run by high grade synthetic oils, because they have better temperature resistance and flow-ability, and seal conditioning abilities. Again, brand new engines will perhaps burn more oil while its seals are settling, but NOT after the break-in period. How do I know? Toyota says so in the manual. So no, barring the break-in period, newer engines will not burn more oil than when they age. This is as true as the Sun and the Moon, and is also backed by CR which says, it found that cars that burn oil early consume more as they age.

While it is perfectly normal to burn some oil, CR is saying some models burn uncharacteristically higher than others. You want them to point out the caveats like you mentioned? Why? Are these caveats any different for cars that are not burning excessive oil? Are the offending models much higher performance than others? There are other force fed mainstream and performance engines out there that are not burning excessive oil. Why is it wrong to point out general anomalies to the car buying public buying luxury vehicles?

According to OP's quote, "The magazine says that standards for certain Audi and BMW cars say that it's reasonable to burn a quart of oil every 600 to 700 miles. Subaru considers one quart burned for every 1,000 to 1,200 miles to be acceptable, Consumer Reports said". So, as you see, CR is pointing out what the manual says. While Subaru, Audi, and BMW are claiming them to be acceptable, any unsuspecting car buying public will consider this amount of consumption as excessive and unacceptable.

Again from one of the offending manufacturers, Audi spokesman Bradley Stertz said a class action lawsuit against Audi over oil consumption by the 2.0-Liter turbocharged four-cylinder engines is close to being settled without the company admitting liability or wrongdoing. The settlement affects 2009 A4, 2010 A4 and A5, and 2011 A4, A5 and Q5 models. With the other models, Audi hasn't been able to identify an abnormal number of oil consumption complaints, he said.

Clearly Jill, you'll agree that there are Audi's customers who could perhaps had these kind of articles by CR come up sooner.

In any case, that is enough evidence, claim and counter claim for me to justify staying away from those models and at least where the 2.0 l turbo 4 has been used and BMW's said models. I simply don't want the hassle of being given the runaround by the manufacturer while running the uphill battle of class action lawsuits; while they simply point out a line in the owner's manual with an oil consumption amount that was perhaps acceptable in the 70's, but not now. Not at the least with the mainstream offering. So I thank CR for pointing out these makes and models, so that I can decide to steer clear from. I retain my vehicles for a long term period. So, having this knowledge is critical for my car buying decisions.

I'll tell you what. If these offending manufacturers find faults with CR claim, they will file a libel suit. Not that others haven't tried this route before. Let's see if it happens. Until then CR has my support for pointing this out. The more you cry foul over CR's article since all the deliberations, the more I tend to suspect you have an agenda behind it.

mmarshall

Exactly. Suzuki filed a libel suit against CR over the unstable flip-over charateristics of the Samurai. It went about as far as the paper it was written on, and wound up in the trash can.

My0gr81

Just to bring context, by looking at a scenario not automotive related, but similar in real life.

What if a common pain medication irritated one's stomach lining, caused cramping and in some cases caused severe side effects including bleeding through the anus or rupture in the wall of the stomach or intestine, would it be OK? what if those side effects are disclosed and listed in the meds literature? would it still be OK?

What if a well respected medical journal published an article with that information? Would it be sensationalising?







Well this is the case with plain old acetylsalicylic acid, or the active ingredient in Aspirin.
http://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-10...t-sideeffectsv


CR is crap, but the article stands on its merits as providing information to its readers and subscribers. At least, it can't be accused of being bought by its advertisers. Even if it is obvious when they have it in for a brand or company.

LoveCT

1. So what? Does this in any way gives a green light to build a sloppy engine?

2. But clearly, the engines from BMW, Audi and Subaru are worse than other boosted offerings. Could this be because of the manufacturers' fault?

3.Again, so what? This is not a clean pass to build a bad engine. It's as if saying that you can pass bad valve in a tire because there is a Tire Pressure Monitoring System. If the driver fails to notice the TPMS warning, any subsequent issues are not bad valve issuer/installer's problem.

4. Looks like it did form reading the original posting, at least in its announcements and media releases.

5. Why should it do that? Are you suspecting that the users of these offending makes are following a different statistical pattern of non compliance than the non offenders.

6. Again, why should it do that? Are you suspecting that the drivers of these offending engines are driving uncharacteristically different than the non offenders? By simply saying that you will consume more oil by driving hard, should equally be held true for both offenders and non offenders. A characteristic of a good engine is to resist eating lubrication, at all driving formats. The thought that owners of Audi A5 (offending engine) perhaps are driving harder than S5 (non offender) is somewhat difficult to prove or contest.

mmarshall

No one is forced to read their articles or subscribe to them.

Wrong. In most cases, the monitors only determine the lubricating-ability of the remaining oil in the crankcase. A separate red low-oil pressure light (which is usually not part of the monitor-system) tells you if oil-pressure or oil-level is low.

Depends on how they are driven.

Correct....but that is not from the monitor.

CR is not a nanny. People are expected to read their manuals.

It is assumed that factory recommendations are being followed. They don't have to dwell on the obvious.

That's just common sense. Again, CR does not have to state the obvious.

Toys4RJill

Modern BMW vehicles do not have a method of checking engine oil manually, ie there is no dipstick. The BMWs that pertain to CRs article have engine oil monitors that measure the oil level in the engine and then will tell you simply add oil.

Basically there is a button that says "Measure Engine Oil Level" and the engine oil is measured via a scale.

mmarshall, you are showing how misleading this CR article is. You obviously did not do any research into the issue.

mmarshall

Yes, BMW and some other upmarket vehicles are that way......no dipstick. That's why I said most monitors and now all of them.

You may or may not remember them (the company pulled out of the American market in the late 1980s), but before the days of electronic oil-monitoring, some American-spec Renaults and other French cars sported a electromechanical oil-level gauge instead of an oil-pressure gauge or a red warning light.

Say What? I not only read both the on-line and paper-issue version of the article in depth....I am a CR subscriber. Been reading it since high school...and that was a long time ago.

rominl

iTrader: (4)

doesn't matter. mixing old technology with new technology is silly to begin with. just like batteries, old school rechargeable batteries and people tell you always drain before charge and when you charge, charge full. applying that to latest battery technology and you get smh from engineers.

time has changed. whatever there is in the past might not apply now